hudsonsims can you say more about the implication of the semantic differences you're concerned about?
Sure. I´m not arguing for a minor semantic problem. I hate to have to be picky, even more on definitions. If I do is for the increasing feeling that twisted concepts are being used to support partisan conclusions (even worse: states of opinion). Honest conversations would be impossible this way, and honest conversations between people that share some common knowledge should be extremely simple.
hudsonsims abstracting it into a dollar cost seems reasonable, even if not 100% equivalent
Abstracting it to dollars makes no sense. By that same logic, we would be burning $6,000-10,000 dollars every Monday on the ritual-burning-pyre. Using the current price to abstract a scenario with strong dilutive effects does not make much sense either (I already said how I would handle it), but hey, not the biggest issue. By thomahawk´s logic in his last post (I´m drawing an analogy myself, not quoting or putting words on his mouth) the Monday´s ritual would also be big “$$ drain”. But it´s not, because Botto in treasury 1) belongs to all Botto-holders, thus 2) is financially neutral, both of which which lead to, 3) is not an asset for the dao, but a liability when it has been issued. When has unissued Equity been an asset for a company? Never. It´s nonsense. I can´t remember how many times I explained and shared materials explaining this.
It´s not the first time that we conduct narratives based on distorted concepts, and that´s dangerous because then someone not as financially literate as thomahawk might go and read what he wrote ("$$ drain"), and that someone might understand that LMining is just another $ expense for the DAO (so hey, let´s save some bucks together!).
You ask about the implications. The main one: we overlook the core issue and screw up good (and fair decision making). But also, implications of conceptual and communicative clarity:
1) Precision and efficiency in conversations
2) The ability, and the perception of being able to hold honest conversations that lead to the best decision-making in our hands
3) 1 and 2 applied externally, which will soon become more important
What´s the core implicit issue here? That LMining dilutes some Botto-holders and does not dilute other Botto-holders. That´s where the partisan “conflict” lies. If all Botto-holders were doing LMining, LM rewards would be as neutral as burning $botto each week (or any other $Botto amount in treasury tomorrow).
What do we need to understand (and if you look up, ALL my previous interventions pursue this..)? Whether the (hypothetical) value that the LM program brings to the DAO as a whole (and thus to the Botto-holders that are not LMiners) compensate the dilution that the program is generating to the Botto-holders that are not doing LMining, bearing in mind that many LMiners made a decision in good faith and with a calendar in mind. THIS is imo (and I think you are already with me) centering the conversation.
But please don´t tell it´s a “$$ drain”. It´s not a $$ drain for the DAO, , it´s a value drain for those who are not doing LMining, only. And it wouldn´t be if the value LMiners brings > than the dilution non-Lminers suffer.
